SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Torie]

How come you ignored my comment about how American Christians are often willing to ally with unbelievers and deliberately avoid calling out their anti-Christ beliefs and behavior for political gain?

Because there's nothing he wouldn't accept to achieve theocracy. He doesn't care if we accept Christianity in our hearts because his aspiration is a world where we are made to follow its rules anyway or burn (both in real life and imaginary lava jail).

Unfortunately, I see relations between Christians and non-Christians becoming far worse and more violent as a result of this philosophy and opportunists using its believers. Americans are a people who like to decide our fate, and the Evangelicals follow a strategy of political entrenchment rather than democratic persuasion. At least some seem to think it will be fine because they can use the pretense of legitimacy to shoot everyone who protests demanding to vote for their government.

This is depressing but true. Anyone who's Christian is going to be, by default, assumed to support this decision, regardless of where their church actually stands. But there's not going to be any nuanced discussion of abortion in the coming years. We will hear the secular view and the religious fundamentalist view but not much else. Because $$$$

Your comment motivated me to look for a poll on the subject. 11% of atheists are "somewhat" pro-choice. That is my little box.


It will be interesting if this decision moves the needle on the attitudes of the public.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/13/which-religious-groups-members-abortion-poll

I thought the Evers comment was performance art on his part (obviously no pro life law is going to pass while he is around), but lo and behold Wisconsin has a law on the book about abortion enacted in 1849. Not sure what it says.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/06/24/abortion-illegal-wisconsin-how-roe-v-wade-affects-laws-supreme-court-decision/7704769001/

[Asta]

Since the conversation is over and I'm supposedly trolling I won't clutter the thread by quoting Fuzzy's post, but I will explain my point to anyone reading and also explain why it's relevant to this thread. I'm an ex-evangelical so I'm going to channel my old self and write this from that perspective, if you'll indulge me for a few paragraphs.

I want it to be clear that the religious talk on this issue from people like Fuzzy is a political performance done for the exclusive purpose of achieving success in secular government. This is about ending abortion, but it's not about serving God, at least not serving God the way the Bible demands it. Contrary to what Fuzzy seems to think I believe, I don't think it's wrong to agree with someone on a particular issue. What I'm talking about is tolerating and accommodating sinful and anti-Christ behavior in order to further a secular political goal. Denying God in the presence of unsaved people who need to hear the gospel is anti-Christ to the core. Holding hands with those who stand for a false, hell-bound religious system and pretending that they represent righteousness is anti-Christ to the core, no matter how impressive your political goal is. You're selling out God in order to achieve earthly accomplishments.

The issue I kept bringing up that Fuzzy refused to answer, and yes he did refuse to directly address it, relates to downplaying, withholding, and perverting the gospel in order to achieve more political power, regardless of what the end results are. He and other Christians are eager to twist the gospel around to make it seem like Trump is a Christian, but that's BS. We all know he would never extend such license to anyone else. Everyone knows behind the scenes that Trump does not believe in Jesus Christ as a savior, and regardless of whatever he claims to believe, Donald Trump is an unrepentant adulterer. The scripture is clear: God hates divorce, those who divorce and remarry are living in adultery, and there is no place for adulterers in the Kingdom of Heaven. For Christians to stand by him, worship his image, or ignore his behavior sends a message to the world that unrepentant unbelief and immorality are a-okay. You're bearing false witness to the world, ignoring an opportunity to preach the truth to men in hopes that some of them might be saved, all in exchange for power.

If you're still with me, my question is, "Why is it okay for Trump's 'Christian' entourage to withhold this information from him and encourage him to continue as he is and wind up in hell when he inevitably dies, as all men do?" The answer here, which Fuzzy unintentionally admitted, is that political victories in these cases are more important than the salvation of those allies who serve to further Christian influence in secular government. If the Christians who have sold their souls for political power were willing to warn Trump of his eternal fate, then they might lose access to him. They're willing to let Trump and his devotees remain blissfully ignorant on their way to hell if it means an abortion-related win. They're willing to deny Christ and adopt a fake milquetoast Jesus if it means achieving some piddling abortion victory.

I know a few people who are devout Christians and desperately want to end abortion. They vote, of course, but they also dedicate their time to helping pregnant women in need as well as families with children who have been born, they pray, and they're able to do all that without denying Christ in the presence of unbelievers for political gain. They don't whore themselves out to secular authorities, like most of the Christian Right does.

If you've stuck with me through this miserable, probably terrible post, thank you. The tl;dr is basically that you can oppose abortion while serving God, or you can forsake God to achieve political success in opposition to abortion or any other cultural issue. Don't let the people doing the latter ever talk a big game to you about how they're representing Christ. See it for what it is: a political strategy. It's as empty as "Hope & Change"

I am an evangelical Christian and always will be, but every time I try to have a rational conversation with evangelicals around me, I get more discouragingly convinced that it will ever be fruitful or that they'll ever grasp realistic and practical sense of politics.

If they could turn the country into theocracy, they would. If Trump committed more sins in order to legislate more Christian-like legislations, they would support it. If they could legislate bills to keep all Muslims out, they would. There are many Christians that believe Trump is a genuine Christian and divine figure doing God's work through recognition of Israel, and anointment of Christian justices.

"Do not yolk with unbelievers" when it is a baby-killer, gay-loving Democrat.
"Paul was an unbeliever too when he was an unbeliever" when it is Trump.

It's no wonder have such tough time believing that Trump actually lost. It's unfathomable in their warped mindset that God will allow inerrant, true Christian like Trump to lose.

They're interesting bunches to say the least.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/597431
Japanese online news article on the issue of abortion. It is readible using Google Translate.
I found it interesting seeing an outsiders perspective looking in.

[Torie]

AG Garland: States can't ban FDA-approved abortion pills on safety grounds

I hope this holds true.

This will be litigated and go before the Supreme Court. 

Pro-choice advocates should really just lay low for a few years and focus on codifying abortion rights into as many States' laws as possible.  Going the litigious route just gives Alito & Co. the opportunity to create all sorts of anti-choice precedents that will take decades to overturn.

"The DOJ has no role to play in determining what the country's abortion laws will be" said the Supreme Court today.

Assuming a  state passes a law banning the morning after pill (I assume that is what this is) because it terminates an incipient pregnancy, I wonder if there are 41 Pubs who would oppose a federal law on the subject of the use of that pill. I also don't know how a state ban could be enforced.

If a state goes there, the Dems should force a vote on the matter. Garland should be upheld if a state plays a disingenuous regulatory game of the sort that he described.

[walleye26]

A few thoughts from me:

1. Not sure why Democrats are having a civil war between Leftists and moderates. Leftists are all arguing that the Democrats don’t play hardball and act like Republicans do. To me, I don’t understand why Leftists/Bernie bros haven’t understood that Democrats CAN’T play hardball like Republicans because of the bias of the Senate. The Dakotas have 1.5 M people between them, yet have as much power as California and New York combined. I’m not outright saying that leftists ideas are outright bad, but they are just politically impossible since ~24 states are solid GOP no matter what. ~8 states are competitive, but only about 18 are truly safe Dem. As long as Republicans control the Gerrymandering and the senate has a rural bias, it’s all the GOP’s fault these things happen.

2. While I think this was a bad decision, I sort of understand the idea of “send it back to the elected representatives.” I can understand the logic of “this shouldn’t have been something the court decided.” That being said, the Federal government should immediately pass an abortion rights law that guarantees abortions no questions asked for the first trimester. If half the country bans abortions outright, women will die.

3. While the Supreme Court is sort of insulated from public opinion, they shouldn’t test their luck. History suggests (from the Dred Scott decision to Court packing in the 1930s) if SCOTUS gets way out of line with public opinion, there will be a backlash. It shouldn’t surprise SCOTUS to hear about court packing when they make decisions that ~70% of the country disagrees with. It shouldn’t surprise them they have protestors outside their houses when they have justices on the court saying we should revisit precedents involving gay marriage and gay sex. That’s literally insane.

I was raised religiously, and while I liked my pastors, I stopped going because I felt that a lot of Christians (although many who attended my church were fine people) were all virtue-singling snobs. “Oh I’m so good, I go to church” as they then proceed to live a completely un-Christian life the whole rest of the week. It also bothered me that many charities that had ties to Christianity wouldn’t help those it deemed “unworthy” (LGBT, etc). That seems to me to go against all the parts of the Bible I read growing up, where Jesus always reached out to the people on the fringes of society (lepers, tax collectors, etc). I also remembered how every time Jesus had the opportunity to seize political power, he refused. Christians in this country seem to try their hardest to seize power at every opportunity. It just seemed so hypocritical to me.

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

[DaleCooper]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

[soundchaser]

In general I believe that this forum is way too male to actually discuss abortion in any meaningful manner, but alas.

So was the protest I went to last night, which is why I assume the “end U.S. imperialism now!” chant became the topic of conversation.

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

[Storr]

In general I believe that this forum is way too male to actually discuss abortion in any meaningful manner, but alas.

So was the protest I went to last night, which is why I assume the “end U.S. imperialism now!” chant became the topic of conversation.

Oddly enough I have been in DC for vacation since Wednesday. So I decided to go to the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Fortunately, the protest there was not male dominated at all (I'd estimate the crowd was at least 2/3 female), unless you count the completely male Capitol Police presence.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chief-justice-roberts-wanted-slow-090030424.html

Roberts wanted colleges to go slow on Roe but they refused lead by ACB whom have adoption kids

No question ACB replacing Ginsberg changed the make up of this Crt , Trump wants to be Prez again and appoint more Scalias at the Appeals level, NOT, he never appoints anyone of color

[Person Man]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

It could get to 60 in the senate if it actually contained federally protected exceptions.

[Person Man]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

It could get to 60 in the senate if it actually contained federally protected exceptions. A federal quickening law without Rd giving anything in return would not get a single D vote in the senate. A 18 week ban might get Casey and Manchin.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

It could get to 60 in the senate if it actually contained federally protected exceptions. A federal quickening law without Rd giving anything in return would not get a single D vote in the senate. A 18 week ban might get Casey and Manchin.

Casey's basically dropped all pretenses of being "pro-life" by now lmao

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

It could get to 60 in the senate if it actually contained federally protected exceptions.

If you are right, I would expect it to be introduced immediately. Unfortunately, I am skeptical, but hopefully wrong about that. Is there any chat on the internet about trying to do this?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/BonillaJL/status/1540378925074944016?t=jNL6CQG1KXxaqxBZQ6zcf...

Literally nothing she said was even remotely correct.

[The Dowager Mod]

Kind of awkward to celebrate "Land of the free" and fourth of July next week in a country where you in fact, cannot make your own decisions.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's have plenty of races in the H and S to net the TRIFECTA again, but clearly everyone knows OH, FL and NC are the Tipping pt races if Rs lose those the D's will keep the H and Beasley and Demings are only 5/6 pts down and Ryan is tied and Crist is tied, with Biden at 42%, they just said that on MSNBC that OH, FL and NC are BELLWETHERS for the H but WI and PA are BELLWETHERS for S control

Alot of the H races MI 7, MN, 1 and FL 13 are MOE

[libertpaulian]

What about this for a model law?

First 15 weeks: legal on request
Weeks 16-24: rape, incest, human trafficking, domestic violence, extreme poverty, maternal health, fetal anomalies, female is <14 years of age
Weeks 25-birth: extreme medical emergencies

States who wish to go beyond this time limit may do so until viability, and maternal health must always be a relevant factor. However, this federal model is the minimum standard.

[Hammy]

Kind of awkward to celebrate "Land of the free" and fourth of July next week in a country where you in fact, cannot make your own decisions.

"Freedom" has never been anything more than an empty slogan to Republicans

[President Johnson]

Although he didn't vote to overturn Roe, it gives me second thoughts that this would be a good moment for John Roberts to retire to at least allow Biden nominating another justice to bench as long as Democrats have the senate.

Obviously I'd prefer Thomas and/or Alito to go first, but that's not going to happen unless they drop dead.

[Horus]

What about this for a model law?

First 15 weeks: legal on request
Weeks 16-24: rape, incest, human trafficking, domestic violence, extreme poverty, maternal health, fetal anomalies, female is <14 years of age
Weeks 25-birth: extreme medical emergencies

States who wish to go beyond this time limit may do so until viability, and maternal health must always be a relevant factor. However, this federal model is the minimum standard.

Sounds reasonable. The ERs of the country would never agree to it.

To them, a raped woman must carry her rape baby. Victims of incest must give birth. It's sick.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well, on MSNBC that Biden is against Crt packing so, that ends thats that, Rs would create so much havoc anyways if the Ds did ignite Crt packing, the best that females can hope for in the next Congress is codify Roe, but clearly this hurts Trumps reelection chances in 24 we don't need anymore right wing judge's he appointed 300 already at the Appeals level

But, planned Parenthood isn't gonna get rid of Birth Control, but Clarence Thomas is talking about banning gay marriage at Federal levels

[Benjamin Frank]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

Oh, thanks for the correction. I didn't think that was possible under federal law. I thought if the law sets a federal minimum at 15 weeks that would supercede any state law. I didn't know that federal law could say 'this is the maximum but states can have stricter laws.'

I've made several posts with factual errors in the last few days. If anybody cares, I'm going to punish myself by taking a one week leave from posting here.

I will allow myself an exception for commenting on economic issues.

[Hermit For Peace]

Kind of awkward to celebrate "Land of the free" and fourth of July next week in a country where you in fact, cannot make your own decisions.

"Freedom" has never been anything more than an empty slogan to Republicans

Except freedom from taxes for the wealthy and freedom to own an assault rifle at age 18 they will vociferously defend.